Free Agency Brad Crouch [joins St Kilda as a RFA for pick 23]

Remove this Banner Ad

the AFL's control over the SA teams boards (and I think some other interstate clubs have similar issues) is outrageous and a clear attempt by the VFL to maintain some sort of control. I've spoken on it before that its crap and the non-vic clubs should be banding together to fight for changes.

having said that port is operating under the same conditions and we haven't had these problems the crows have had. we just have one hand tied behind our back.

the crows have an issue with the boys club, and the way the media and fans believe the crows rhetoric which allows the crows to continue their ways unchallenged. these issues aren't created by the afl board stipulations on your club.

Port fans are fortunate in that currently you have the right people in the driving seat of your club, but you have the same structural issues with your governance that we do. It wasn’t long ago that sustained maladministration which put your AFL license at risk led to the AFL clearing your board and instating a new CE & president, so you’re not in any way immune to this.

Both clubs need to introduce mechanisms to improve accountability of the board to members.
 
Port seemed to do ok with Nick Stevens. Unusual for a Port fan the be having a crack over this one.

Nick Stevens is a completely different scenario

there were no lingering questions over why nick would leave us. He had offers for more money to his home state where he would be the centrepiece of a team.

Port let him go for nothing because he wanted to go to a team that we saw as our direct competitors for a premiership we were desperate to win. The deal would have greatly improved Collingwood and weakened us. We let him go to Carlton, and won a premiership. Port fans were largely happy and that is seen as smart business by any sane person.

my comment was a reply to this post by a crows supporter...

or we could just go screw u stkilda, screw u crouch, suck a bag of...... we are matching. Prefer nothing cause it’s only a junk pick anyway. Good luck you miss out
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Agree, it looks really desperate.

At that point, we should have said we would pay $100-200k of his salary if they offer a pick. We have cap space and will so for the next few years to be able to afford it. Effectively, we would have been paying 100-200k for a first round draft pick. In our situation, you would do that.

The club made a rod for its own back talking about pick 2. If they hadn't then maybe pick 23 could have been seen as an OK outcome. And yes, if the rules let you do that.....
 
Port fans are fortunate in that currently you have the right people in the driving seat of your club, but you have the same structural issues with your governance that we do. It wasn’t long ago that sustained maladministration which put your AFL license at risk led to the AFL clearing your board and instating a new CE & president, so you’re not in any way immune to this.

Both clubs need to introduce mechanisms to improve accountability of the board to members.

the maladministration that threatened port wasn't our board, it was the set up with the sanfl, sma and football oval bleeding us dry. our previous admin laid the groundwork that would eventually free us (and the crows) from that shitstorm and weathered the flaying that came with that. as soon as we fixed that port was free of the leeches and able to operate a hell of a lot better.

as I said, you're correct that the afls control of our boards is bullshit and a hindrance but I don't see it as the cause of the issues that have plagued the crows.
 
We know the reason - he wanted a 5 year deal due to injury history, and we didn't want to give it.

That part is obvious.
Just offer him the extra years tied in to triggers. Could've made them a bit more difficult to reach than St Kilda's ones, but still gets the long term deal. Its what GWS have done with Kelly and Conigilio. They've got triggers on most of the years.

Sydney have it with Papely as well.
 
Crouch faced the media for the first time on Thursday as an official St Kilda player and showed how little emotion he had at leaving the Crows.
Crouch said leaving Adelaide was a “complete no-brainer”. :)
 
Just offer him the extra years tied in to triggers. Could've made them a bit more difficult to reach than St Kilda's ones, but still gets the long term deal. Its what GWS have done with Kelly and Conigilio. They've got triggers on most of the years.

Sydney have it with Papely as well.
I don't think triggers are generally associated with injury-prone players, cause if and when they get injured is out of their control. Players in that situation would take the guaranteed security in that situation, which Crouch has done.
 
the maladministration that threatened port wasn't our board, it was the set up with the sanfl, sma and football oval bleeding us dry. our previous admin laid the groundwork that would eventually free us (and the crows) from that shitstorm and weathered the flaying that came with that. as soon as we fixed that port was free of the leeches and able to operate a hell of a lot better.

as I said, you're correct that the afls control of our boards is bullshit and a hindrance but I don't see it as the cause of the issues that have plagued the crows.

Could be wrong but I don’t think the members would have been as forgiving as the AFL of some of the systemic governance issues that have arisen at the Crows over the last few years. If the board members were all accountable to the members via democratic process, I can’t imagine they all would have survived. If nothing else make them sweat a little.
 
Last edited:
We know the reason - he wanted a 5 year deal due to injury history, and we didn't want to give it.

That part is obvious.

wrong.

he doesn't have a 5 year deal from saints, its widely reported to be a 4 yr deal with triggers on modest pay.

there's no reason to suspect that crows wouldn't pay crouch.

he wanted out of the club. this idea that he was leaving for more money has always been a smokescreen to evade criticism of the club itself. its been their playbook for years and this time it backfired when it became abundantly clear he didn't leave for more money.
 
wrong.

he doesn't have a 5 year deal from saints, its widely reported to be a 4 yr deal with triggers on modest pay.

there's no reason to suspect that crows wouldn't pay crouch.

he wanted out of the club. this idea that he was leaving for more money has always been a smokescreen to evade criticism of the club itself. its been their playbook for years and this time it backfired when it became abundantly clear he didn't leave for more money.
Keep trolling! Keep to the facts, and you'll have more credibility.

The reason he wanted the Saints, is the tenure. That's fact, not fake news.
 
Could be wrong but I don’t think the members would have been as forgiving as the AFL of some of the systemic governance issues that have arisen at the Crows over the last few years. If the board members were all accountable to the members, I can’t imagine they all would have survived. If nothing else make them sweat a little.

I see your point and agree with the logical basis in theory but we have different views of your supporter base.

the fact your clubs supporters want Kelly shitcanned for not matching when I think the issue obviously lies well before that for instance.

I have no reason to believe that the differences your supporter base would have been influential when they continue to ask the wrong questions.
 
Keep trolling! Keep to the facts, and you'll have more credibility.

The reason he wanted the Saints, is the tenure. That's fact, not fake news.



ill challenge you to prove that he went to the saints because of length of contract.

if brad wanted to stay at the crows, the crows would have signed him. you would have to be the biggest moron in the universe to believe that isn't true.

he went elsewhere because he didn't want to be at the crows. that is as evident as the sky is blue.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I think loyalty do a degree is dead.
Clubs will do everything to keep there superstars but as we are seeing with Treloar atm why should players be loyal.

and The contract is for 4 years with triggers for a 5th has to average 16 games a year across the 4 to get a 5th

Its also worth having triggers that limit his salary, if he can't play , to around half of what it would have cost us to give the Crows the pick 2 they wanted.
 
Hard to say as they would have a lot more knowledge on crouch's postion. Starting to sound like the damage was already done to that relationship before the FA period began.

But a public bluff vs a private bluff, both are still bluffs but now look what the administration has to deal with. Adelaide board has posters saying they have contacted the club dropping memberships, the animosity is growing,
Everything would have been better behind closed doors.

Yeah they Probably went a bit hard on the public posturing, at the end of the day clearly just trying to maximise the return, maybe we look a bit silly, hardly think it justifies the vitriol. I don’t think he was ever staying, saints knew that so our only leverage was to bluff in the hope they would commit to trade or somehow come up with some extra dough. It is what it is , well played st Kilda!
 
Why is the only question crows supporters asking is 'why didn't the crows handle crouch's contract situation differently' and not why does a senior established well paid player with cushy media gigs and a brother at the club want to leave?

head in the sand stuff going on there. that is the question you should be asking but I think the reason no crows fans are asking that is telling.
its okay we have Kane Cornes to ask those pertinent questions on our behalf 😉
Truly who knows, it seems as though he wanted more security than we were prepared to offer, fair play to him. At the end of the day he has earnt the right to look around as a free agent and look after himself, I get the feeling we hadnt prioritised him as a must-keep player for whatever reason which probably didn’t help.
 
I see your point and agree with the logical basis in theory but we have different views of your supporter base.

the fact your clubs supporters want Kelly shitcanned for not matching when I think the issue obviously lies well before that for instance.

I have no reason to believe that the differences your supporter base would have been influential when they continue to ask the wrong questions.
The majority of us on this site want Kelly shitcanned, as you put, because he came out and said that if the compensation would be anything less than band 1, which would given us pick 2, then the would club would match that offer that was put to them. After that, not only did the club not do so, it waited until the last minute to do.

Are you suggesting that if Chris Davies came out and said the same thing, and then didn't back it up, that you wouldn't be baying for blood as well?
 
wow Ricciuto is an utter moron ....

“The reason why St Kilda went for Brad Crouch is because he’s a free agent, so they can get him for nothing,” -



“So if you match the deal, two things can happen. You can match, and then trade with them if they wanna trade" -


“Or they can walk away and say ‘well no, the reason we wanted him was because we were gonna get him for nothing, we don’t wanna give up our first pick for him, so you can have him’. -



“And at that point, you would have Brad Crouch wanting to not want to be at Adelaide on a five-year deal, and the Crows not wanting Brad in Adelaide on a five-year deal, okay?" -



“So you’re in a situation you don’t wanna be, and same with Brad. We had a look around to see if any other clubs were interested ... and that wasn’t the case, we couldn’t find one.” -


and this guy is running the crows ....
 
wow Ricciuto is an utter moron ....

“The reason why St Kilda went for Brad Crouch is because he’s a free agent, so they can get him for nothing,” -



“So if you match the deal, two things can happen. You can match, and then trade with them if they wanna trade" -


“Or they can walk away and say ‘well no, the reason we wanted him was because we were gonna get him for nothing, we don’t wanna give up our first pick for him, so you can have him’. -



“And at that point, you would have Brad Crouch wanting to not want to be at Adelaide on a five-year deal, and the Crows not wanting Brad in Adelaide on a five-year deal, okay?" -



“So you’re in a situation you don’t wanna be, and same with Brad. We had a look around to see if any other clubs were interested ... and that wasn’t the case, we couldn’t find one.” -


and this guy is running the crows ....

The worst thing is that all of us on here know it. He is a board member, whose role on the board is related to on field. Therein lies the problem, he believes that he runs the joint, and nobody at the club, either the Chairman, other board members or CEO pull him up and tell him he doesn't run the club. People in the media calling him the Mayor of Adelaide doesn't help.
 
The worst thing is that all of us on here know it. He is a board member, whose role on the board is related to on field. Therein lies the problem, he believes that he runs the joint, and nobody at the club, either the Chairman, other board members or CEO pull him up and tell him he doesn't run the club. People in the media calling him the Mayor of Adelaide doesn't help.
he comes across as somewhat of a snake oil salesman .... being a St Kilda person we have seen our fair share of those over the years ... people who put their own self promotion over the best needs of the club ... with him being a former cham of the club its a hard thing to do telling him to sod off but from experiance it gets worse before it gets better so its best to deal with the "disrespect of the legend" fall out than keep trudging the wrong path hoping it improves ..
 
wow Ricciuto is an utter moron ....

“The reason why St Kilda went for Brad Crouch is because he’s a free agent, so they can get him for nothing,” -



“So if you match the deal, two things can happen. You can match, and then trade with them if they wanna trade" -


“Or they can walk away and say ‘well no, the reason we wanted him was because we were gonna get him for nothing, we don’t wanna give up our first pick for him, so you can have him’. -



“And at that point, you would have Brad Crouch wanting to not want to be at Adelaide on a five-year deal, and the Crows not wanting Brad in Adelaide on a five-year deal, okay?" -



“So you’re in a situation you don’t wanna be, and same with Brad. We had a look around to see if any other clubs were interested ... and that wasn’t the case, we couldn’t find one.” -


and this guy is running the crows ....


this is the post of the thread, actually cancel that, post of the year
 
Are you suggesting that if Chris Davies came out and said the same thing, and then didn't back it up, that you wouldn't be baying for blood as well?

Port fans wouldn’t have waited until the team didn’t match to be critical of the club. The first question we would have asked imo would have been why does he want to leave our club? Crows fans here peddled that crouch was being priced out of the club and even still hold onto that.

Kelly’s mismanagement is one issue but that’s just the last ten minutes of the movie so to speak. What happened in the first two acts and what went wrong?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Free Agency Brad Crouch [joins St Kilda as a RFA for pick 23]

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top